3 ms·
Look, I don't pretend to be an expert here but I've dabbled in learning some other languages, most recently spanish. One thing that keeps coming up is how eco
by cletus 9y ago
Look, I don't pretend to be an expert here but I've dabbled in learning some other languages, most recently
spanish.
One thing that keeps coming up is how economical English seems to be compared to at least the other languages I've encountered. By "economical" I mean in terms of syllables. This seems to be a particularly useful property when it comes rhyming and lyrics and the like.
A few examples from Spanish:
nosotros/nosotras = we
demasiado = too
bastante = quite
primavera = spring
verano = summer
invierno = winter
bebemos = (we) drink
Also, as seems to be common in western European languages (other than English) is that more articles are required. Also, English fits the German pattern (being of that family linguistically speaking, this is unsurprising) of appending nouns together to form new words. In English these are separated by spaces still. In German they are not but it is the same construct/idea.
So English: Independence Day
Spanish: El dia de la independencia
Now this is more complicated because the verb forms in Spanish tend to be so distinct you can drop the subject eg (Yo) estoy tarde (I am late). But still "estoy" is two syllables compared to one in English ("am"). Also, some pronouns are so indistinct that they need to be qualified (eg with "a usted" or "a ella").
I'm by no means a linguistics expert so can't say what affect this has on, say, the speed of information transfer (which I expect is _roughly_ the same across languages but variances probably exist) or on poetry, songs or even puns. But I find it interesting.
Another point: what people find funny, even with those that have the same native tongue, varies culturally. There have been studies on this. For example, Americans tend to prefer humour where people get hurt (ostensibly) and just slapstick in general. This seems to explain things like The Three Stooges. Speaking as an Australian, I've never understood the appeal. But as an Australian, our humour is much closer to English humour.
Again, I make no claims about English compared to other languages.
- saghm 9y agoI'm a native English speaker who's passable at Spanish, and I've noticed this as well. One of the ways I try to practice Spanish is by mentally translating the lyrics of (English) songs that I'm listening to, and it's pretty much impossible to fit a direct translation of most lines within the correct number of syllables, so it becomes an exercise in trying to find a way to express the same thing in fewer syllables before the next line of the song comes.
- gengkev 9y agoOn the relative density of languages, here's an article about a study I think has been discussed on HN before: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2091477,00.html http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2091477,0... Basically your intuition is pretty much correct: languages have roughly the same speed of information transfer because lower density is compensated for with greater speed.
- umanwizard 9y agoExamples from colloquial French with number of syllables: on (1) = we (1) trop (1) = too (1) assez (2) = quite (1) (this one you could translate a few different ways including plutôt, pas mal, très, etc...) printemps (2) = spring (1) été (2) = summer (2) hiver (2) = winter (2) on boit (2) = we drink (2) [1] It's also easy to come up with examples where French requires fewer syllables: hier (2) = yesterday (3) demain (2) = tomorrow (3) on se voit (2, possibly 3 if you enunciate carefully) = we see each other (5) So I think your examples from Spanish are kinda cherry-picked. At any rate, I'm not convinced that "number of syllables" is a very useful metric, since English syllables are more complicated and take longer to utter than Spanish ones. [1]: In the formal/standard register this would be "nous buvons" (3 syllables), but in colloquial speech you would hear "on boit" 99% of the time.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]